Yeah, we'll go dig up Pindling and Adderley and the British who gave them hope under the Constitution where it says that if they are born here to non-Bahamian parents then they have the right to apply for Bahamian citizenship. Not the right to Bahamian citizenship but the right to apply. No, instead we give the constitutional right to Bahamian citizenship to persons born here to non-Bahamians who are here legally under a work permit or residency permit. Neither of these is satisfactory but they are all born here with the desire to become Bahamians, the former because this is possibly much better than where they came from or the only country of resort that they can lay claim to, and the latter because they can always come here if things don't work out in the other country or countries where they have citizenship or we need them to make up some nondescript sports team or sports event for which we don't have enough or any competitors. The bottom line is that all of the Bahamians of today all started out as foreigners in this country, the descendants of ex-slaves from Africa and the descendants of ex-plantation owners, merchants and others from Europe, Asia and America. The "original" Bahamian in the form of the Lucayans, the Arawaks and the Caribs who Columbus and others met here in 1492 have probably all disappeared by now to be replaced by the descendants of "foreigners".

The head of Immigration says anyone can visit the Centre during visiting hours. Most prisons and places of incarceration have a sign up in large letter stating what are its visiting hours and the better ones state what can and cannot be brought onto the compound. So as long as Smith was there during visiting hours, whatever hours they are, he would not have been in breach of those protocols. Several things come to mind: (1) Detention Centre officers could have told Smith, if they cared to, that his client was no longer there. That, of course, creates other problems for them but sometimes it's better to swallow a bitter pill early; (2) They could have told Smith that they cannot assist him but make a telephone call for him to Hawkins Hill and let him speak to one of the big-wigs there who would explain to Smith the Immigration Department's position on the matter and the status of Smith's client. Whether Mr Jean-Charles had status or papers is the crux of the matter. He, like thousands of others including a Government minister, claims to be born in the Bahamas to non-Bahamian parents and constitutionally entitled to apply for Bahamian citizenship. That issue hasn't been resolved therefore it is an abuse of power and procedurally incorrect for Bahamas Immigration to unilaterally deport or repatriate him to Haiti, particularly when he has not been charged in court with anything. This is when we get into the unilateral and despotic aspects of government in this country. If people like Mr Jean-Charles are accused of breaking the law by being in the Bahamas without any status or any papers then they should be charged in a court of law and let an independent jurist determine the matter after hearing from both sides, Immigration and the detainee, and determining the matter on legal principles. Immigration have a power of arrest but not a power to deport or repatriate without a judicial hearing. Smith might have gone slightly overboard with his handling of this matter but, truth be told, incidents like this are long overdue. Too often some uninitiated civil servant (read policeman, immigration officer, clerk in some government office and others) make unilateral decisions without legal or statutory basis that impact members of the public in the belief that they are not answerable to anyone for their actions. A classic example was the last chairperson of the Straw Market Authority who posted some new regulations that he/she had just dreamed up on their office door to the detriment of the vendors in the Straw Market. However the statute creating the Authority requires regulations to be published in the Gazette, presumably after they have been vetted and approved by the Attorney-General's office. The sooner we disabuse these tin pot officials that they have all the power and we in the public do not have to accept the option to either take their decision without complaint or leave it the better off this country will be.

All the jurisdictions that Mr Coulson mentions enjoy umbrage as Crown Colonies and protectorates of the United Kingdom and are supposedly supervised though agencies such as the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. My complaint is the so-called closed shop in the legal community. The same firms with the 20 plus partners that Coulson refers to control the majority of the offshore wealth management legal business in this country and are not interested in competing with the international offices of Big Law firms from the USA, England or anywhere else. The majority of Bahamian lawyers (I would say as much as 85 or 90%) either can't or don't want to get their feet into this pond possibly due to how heavily it is regulated and doesn't have the apparent "panache" of civil and criminal litigation. Many lawyers have no objection to foreign law firms setting up shop in this country and partnering with local lawyers while providing an international flavored law practice. What local lawyers object to is these foreign law firms practicing law in the Bahamas while not admitted to the Bahamas Bar. Providing advice to foreign and domestic clients through foreign and Bamamian lawyers that involves issues of both foreign law and Bahamian law - no problem. Foreign lawyers in the Bahamas representing foreign and domestic clients in court, with banks, insurance companies, Government, basically doing all the things that Bahamian lawyers do without being admitted to the Bahamas Bar - major problem. None of the lawyers in the offshore offices of the Bermudian or Caymanian or BVI law firms can "practice" law in places like the UK or any of the other named jurisdictions unless admitted to the local bar or permitted to do so by statute. So the Bahamian law firms with a presence in Cayman Islands, for instance, can't "practice" law there unless admitted to the Cayman Bar but that does not prevent them from owning a Caymanian law firm or partnering with Caymanian lawyers. There's nothing preventing a similar occurrence in the Bahamas except the will of the local lawyers.

Unfortunately for you, Tracy J. Cooper, you have not even come close to addressing the specific allegations made against Bahamasair which was that it pulled a flight to/from Fort Lauderdale in order to provide its inaugural flight to Houston, thereby causing passengers in both Nassau and Fort Lauderdale to be delayed by 4 or 5 hours while the airline serviced Houston. I don't know whether that qualifies as 'compromised service' or not but what I do know is that it does not answer the issues raised by the letter writer. In simple English, without the doublespeak or airline jumbo jumbo, all that needed to be said was "yes, we redirected the Fort Lauderdale flight to Houston" or "no, we didn't redirect the Fort Lauderdale flight to Houston". How difficult is that? Having taken 4 paragraphs and something in the region of 160 words to basically say "No, we didn't redirect the Fort Lauderdale flight in order to service the inaugural flight to Houston and did not compromise our service on this or any route on the day in question", one is left with the inescapable conclusion that Bahamasair did exactly what the letter writer stated they had done. William Shakespeare to Tracy J. Copper: "I think thou dost protest too much" or words to that effect; you get the message.

For a newspaper that prides itself on having been in business since 1903, the Tribune's reporting standards have really slipped. Social media has now become its "go-to" for so-called "news" instead of good old investigative journalism. The great beauty of social media, even the commentary facility on this website, is that I can sit at my computer, make all kinds of allegations and accusations against anyone I please and am not asked to nor need I provide one iota of proof that any of it is true. What contract/s and from whom is Robinson alleged to have demanded kickbacks? When and where did it occur? How much is involved? What does the Deputy Prime Minister have to say about the alleged meeting between him and Robinson on what has to have been the 2nd December? Rather than just rubber stamping anything on social media as true or partially true, the Tribune needs to investigate allegations made there to determine their truthfulness before rushing to print. Unlike coverage of Parliamentary proceedings, repetition of material on social media does not carry any immunities of its own nor does it qualify as justification.

Which Bahamas are you living in? How did you arrive at the conclusion that the public are or will hold the current Minnis FNM administration to higher standards than they held the Christie PLP administration? Yes, the public's expectations are high but that's because the FNM propose to be more open, transparent and democratic than they claim the PLP were while in government. Threats of lawsuits are simply that, threats. There is nothing to fear from such threats, even if a lawsuit is actually filed, until you get to trial when it becomes a matter of what can each of the parties prove. The threat of a lawsuit by Mr Robinson arises from what he says is an untrue allegation made against him that if it is untrue amounts to libel and/or slander. This is not an issue of uncomfortable painful nests or even a big boys transparency question as in the cases of Frank Smith, Kendred Dorsett and Shane Gibson, but a question of truth: can or will the person/s making these anonymous allegations against Mr Robinson have the intestinal fortitude to step into the spotlight and prove the truthfulness of what they say? That is the real, true legal question.

The only saving grace in this embarrassing cock-up is that since the FNM took over in May, this is not the first time that there has been an embarrassing cock-up involving the Gazette. Remember there was a similar cock-up involving the persons named to statutory boards and committees, with dead people and others being named. Invariably matters involving what is to be published in the Gazette is left to some low-level clerk who is provided with little guidance as to the importance of their job, often coupled with poor or incomplete instructions as to what is to be published. If needs be, Government should hire a lawyer or bring someone in from the Attorney-General's office to review whatever's to be published and ensure its correctness.

So where is my Mr Jean-Charles: in the morgue? (we know they does beat these detainees as the Cuban video demonstrated; BTW still waiting on the formal report on that one)?; at the Detention Centre (please note British spelling) (we know Immigration does lose some of the people put into their "care")?; in Haiti? (if he was sent there then there should be proof of it somewhere - ticket; passenger list?); escaped but Immigration too embarrassed to say? (we know these detainees does escape and get away into the bush, either through the front gate or under the fence). A whole human being cannot just disappear and no one in Government services can say where he is. If he was "repatriated" on 24th November as Immigration would have us believe, then who else went with him on the plane, how many of them and show us proof that Immigration either paid for a ticket or chartered a plane to go to Haiti with him onboard? If he was not named in the list of detainees sent to Haiti on 24th November, is it possible that he went under a different name and if so, what name? The Haitian Embassy has a list of persons presumably repatriated on 24th November but Mr Jean-Charles' name is not on that list. Barring a mistake in the names, then it means that he is, for all intents and purposes, still in the Bahamas. He can't be in 2 places at the same time.

"Confirmation that he was provided with financial means" refers to proof that Bahamas Immigration actually bought him a ticket or made some payment for the detainee to go to Haiti, not that they gave him free spending money

One of the biggest traffic headaches is the undersized roundabouts on roads like the East/West Highway, Tonique Williams Darling Highway, West Bay Street, John F. Kennedy Drive/Airport Road. These roundabouts are too small and do not allow for the free flow of traffic from all side roads. Instead, usually one side or another dominates and most traffic filters in from one side to the detriment of others. One of the worst is at the confluence of Sir Milo Butler Highway, Bethel Avenue and Tonique Williams Darling Highway. Southbound traffic on Bethel Avenue and westbound traffic on TWDH can be backed up for quite a considerable period of time because the roundabout is too small for the volume of traffic, particularly at rush-hour. The idea of the roundabouts was good but the execution was flawed based on size. Another problem is that, unlike in other countries, there is no penalty for blocking intersections, particularly those governed by traffic lights. So for instance at the Marathon Road, Robinson Road, East/West Highway intersection, it is not unusual for east and westbound cars to still be in the intersection and block the movement of north and southbound cars when the traffic light changes from red to green.